9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Act respectively) in the manufacture and sale of transmission rubber beltings. The petitioner filed its returns in accordance with law for the assessment year 1967-68 (Central). The transmission rubber beltings both under the Punjab and the Central Acts were held not to be taxable by the Assessing Authorities in view of the judgment of the Sales. Tax Tribunal in Allied Rubber and Plastic Industries, Jullundur v. State of Punjab dated 29th February, 1968. However, tax under the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) was levied on the raw material purchased for the manufacture of transmission rubber beltings as the raw material was purchased on the strength of the registration certificate. The tax as determined under the second proviso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessment years 1967-68 to 1971-72 under the Punjab Act and for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70 and 1971-72 under the Central Act. Before the revising authority the petitioner raised a preliminary objections that the suo motu proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal in M/s. Brij Cycle Works, which was affirmed by this Court in Laxmi Machinery Store's case [1977] 39 STC 87 that the said judgment would amount to fresh and definite information within the meaning of section 11-A of the Punjab Act; that the proceedings against the petitioner could at best be taken under the said section and not under section 21 of the Punjab Act, which section only empowers the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d raised only one contention, viz., that the judgment delivered by the Tribunal in M/s. Brij Cycle Works and which has been affirmed by this Court in Laxmi Machinery Store [1977] 39 STC 87 was a definite information coming into possession of the revising authority, with the result that on the basis of the said information, respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction or authority under section 21(1) of the Punjab Act to revise the order passed by the Assessing Authority. On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Brar, learned Assistant Advocate-General, submitted that the decision of the Tribunal or this Court cannot be termed or treated "an information" as envisaged under section 11-A, which may have come to the notice of the revising authority subsequently a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to account any material which was not available to the Assessing Authority. The judgment of this Court does not provide any factual material, which was not on the file of the Assessing Authority. The State Sales Tax Tribunal had interpreted an entry in the Act in one way and held the sale of transmission rubber belting to be exempt from tax under the Act. However, this Court while deciding Laxmi Machinery Store's case [1977] 39 STC 87 interpreted this very statutory provision and held that transmission rubber belting is taxable. Now the audit section has only brought the true legal position to the notice of the revisional authority. They have not put in new facts before the authority. The decision of this Court will relate back to the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending before any Assessing Authority or appellate authority in order to determine the legality or propriety of the proceedings. But, before he decides to exercise this power, he must come to the conclusion that the order or the proceedings suffer from the vice of impropriety or illegality and for this conclusion he has to confine himself to the record which is called for by him and which was before the lower authority, as the lower authority can be presumed to have applied his mind only to that record. He cannot take into consideration any fresh material in order to come to this conclusion. After having come to that conclusion, he will be entitled to scrutinise the proceedings and the order passed in order to determine the correct turnover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e." Mr. R.N. Narula, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the aforesaid decision of the learned single judge deserves reconsideration, as it does not lay down a correct law, but he has not been able to cite any relevant authority on the point, on the basis of which, a contrary view could be taken. The reasoning of the learned Judge in the Asian Rubber and Plastic Industries'. case [1982] 50 STC 383, is unassailable and we are in full agreement with the same. In this view of the matter, we hold that the proceedings have rightly been initiated under section 21(1) of the Punjab Act against the petitioner. No other point arises for consideration. For the reasons recorded above, these petitions fail and are dismissed, but in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
